0

“Bombay High Court Denies Plea to Quash Case Against Former Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu for Alleged Assault on Prison Personnel”

Blog , , ,

Case Title: Nara Chandrababu Naidu Versus State of Maharashtra and others

Case No: CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3428 OF 2023

Decided on: 10th May , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE JUSTICE MANGESH S. PATIL & HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME

Facts of the case

Sections 143 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act were allegedly used to justify the arrest of Mr. Naidu and his colleagues, totaling 66 people. After being placed under magistrate’s remand, they were eventually told to be transferred to the Central Jail Aurangabad. The accused spent the night in a makeshift jail after they refused to comply and insisted on air-conditioned busses for the trip. They were accused of hurling insults and refusing to board the air-conditioned buses the next morning, which resulted in the charges.

Issues

1.Whether Mr. Naidu and his friends’ arrest and subsequent treatment follow the law?

2.Whether the accused’s request for air-conditioned buses serve as a legal justification for their refusal to cooperate with the jail transfer procedure?

3.Whether the things that Mr. Naidu and his friends did within the jail grounds legal?

Legal Provisions

Sections 353, 324, 332, 336, 337, 504, 506 read with Sections 109 and 34 of the IPC, which deal with assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant, causing harm with dangerous weapons, rash acts endangering the lives of others, intentional insult with an intent to provoke breach of peace, and criminal intimidation, were among the charges brought against Mr. Naidu and others.

Appellant’s Contentions

Mr. Naidu argued that the accusations made against him and his friends were politically motivated and without merit. He maintained that considering the participants’ health issues and circumstances, the request for air-conditioned buses was legitimate. In addition, he asserted that the whole incident was exaggerated and that the jail staff was not meant to suffer any physical harm

Respondent’s Contentions

The state of Maharashtra argued that Mr. Naidu and his allies had disobeyed the state’s law enforcement agencies and violated discipline by refusing to cooperate with the prison officials. They contended that the accused should have been sued because of his disruptive behavior

Court Analysis and Judgement

The 2010 case against Nara Chandrababu Naidu, the former chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, was not overturned by the Bombay High Court. In order to have offenses covered by several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) punished, Naidu had filed a criminal application seeking the quashment of the crime, chargesheet, and criminal case. The IPC’s Sections 353, 324, 332, 336, 337, 504, 506, read with Sections 109 and 34, were the offenses for which the case was filed. The police’s investigation, the magistrate’s cognizance, and the registration of the offense against the petitioners were all deemed lawful by the court. The judges of the Supreme Court rendered two different rulings regarding the quashing of the FIR against Chandrababu Naidu. Judge Aniruddha Bose in part granted Naidu’s appeal, ruling that any inquiry or probe of a public worker connected to official duties must have permission from the relevant authority in accordance with Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Supreme Court Acquits Accused of Stalking and Intimidation Post-Marriage: Offenses Deemed Personal in Light of Union

Blog, Supreme court , , ,

Supreme Court Acquits Accused of Stalking and Intimidation Post-Marriage: Offenses Deemed Personal in Light of Union

Case title: DASARI SRIKANTH VS STATE OF TELANGANA
Case no.: SLP (Criminal) No(s). 2122 of 2024
Dated on: 14TH May 2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice SANDEEP MEHTA AND Mr. Justice B.R. GAVAI

FACTS OF THE CASE
This appeal is preferred by the appellant for assailing the judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court of the State of Telangana at Hyderabad partly allowing the Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2021 preferred by the appellant, upholding his conviction for offences under Sections 354D and 506-Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’), but reducing the sentence of imprisonment for both the offences to three months. The accused appellant was tried by the Special Fast Track Court, Suryapet(hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’). Vide judgment dated 9th April, 2021, the trial Court acquitted the accused appellant for the offences under Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(hereinafter being referred to as ‘POCSO Act’) but at the same time, convicted and sentenced him for offences under Sections 354D and 506-Part I IPC. the High Court reduced the sentences awarded to the accused appellant to three months on both counts. A pertinent plea has been raised in this appeal that the appellant and the complainant(victim) have married each other on 6th August, 2023 as per the Hindu rites and customs and that the marriage has also been registered in the Office of Registrar of Hindu Marriages and Sub Registrar, Kodad, District Suryapet, Telangana. An affidavit of the complainant affirming this fact was placed on record. Accordingly, vide order dated 16th April, 2024, we directed the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Telangana to verify the fact regarding the marriage of the appellant and the complainant from the concerned police station.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant submitted that is evident from the record, the appellant was initially charged for the offences under Sections 354D and 506 of IPC and Section 11 read with Section 12 of POCSO Act. learned trial Court did not find the offences under the POCSO Act proved and acquitted the accused appellant from the said charges. The offences under Section 354D IPC and Section 506 IPC are personal to the complainant and the accused appellant. The fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of this appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed. the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger. As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Ms. Devina Sehgal, learned counsel representing the State has filed a compliance affidavit sworn by the Sub-Inspector of the police station concerned who has verified the fact that the appellant and the complainant have solemnized marriage with each other and the marriage was registered as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the Office of Registrar and Sub Registrar, Kodad, Suryapet District, Telangana on 23rd, September, 2023. The copy of the marriage certificate is annexed with the said affidavit. the impugned judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court and judgment dated 9th April, 2021 passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside.

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 354D IPC: Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/-(in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month)
Section 506 Part I IPC: Simple Imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/-(in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days)
Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012: Whoever, commits sexual harassment upon a child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant for assailing the judgment dated 27th June, 2023 passed by the High Court of the State of Telangana at Hyderabad partly allowing the Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2021 preferred by the appellant, upholding his conviction for offences under Sections 354D and 506-Part I of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’), but reducing the sentence of imprisonment for both the offences to three months. The offences under Section 354D IPC and Section 506 IPC are personal to the complainant and the accused appellant. The fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of this appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appeal is allowed in these terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

0

Delhi High Court no requirement for separate notice to each of the Trustees of the accused to make them Vicariously liable to be proceeded against in terms of Section 138 Of the NI Act

Blog , ,

CASE TITTLE:HARPREET SAHNI & ANR. V. SHRICHAND HEMNANI and Anr

CASE NO:CRL.M.C. 6094/2022 & CRL.M.A. 23877/202

ORDER ON:15.05.2024

QUORUM:JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The above  petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi  herein, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, As these petitions had common questions of law and facts, these are being considered and disposed of by Way of this common judgment.

The facts leading to the present petition in question is that The above complaint cases have been originally filed by the respondent, It was alleged That the accused nos.3 to 10 came in contact of the Respondent and represented and assured them about their position,based on their representation, the respondent have extended loans to the accused, in the joint name of accused no.1-Mother’s Pride Punjabi Bagh and the accused no.2-Presidium Eduvision Trust. It is alleged that the accused were to pay interest at the rate of 19.5% per annum on the loan amount for the period of the loan. It is alleged that till the month of June, 2018, accused nos.1 to 10 paid interest on the said loan, however, thereafter they defaulted in payment of interest,  It is claimed that on 01.12.2018, when the respondent deposited the cheques issued by the accused nos.1 to 10 for repayment of the loan, the same were dishonoured with the remark „Funds Insufficient‟. It is averred that the respondent  thereafter issued respective legal notices  to the accused nos.1 to 10 to repay the cheque(s) amount, however, the same was not paid. The respondent in the original complaint also pleaded and made similar allegations,however  It appears that in the pre-summoning evidence, the respondent(s) summoned the Manager of Axis Bank, Rajouri Garden, Delhi as a witness before the learned Trial Court to Give the pre-summoning evidence on the Bank Account Maintained by the accused no.2 therein, that is, Presidium Eduvision Trust, with the said bank. It is stated that the official from the Axis Bank appeared before the Learned Trial Court and placed all the account related records,The respondent(s) claimed  that for the first time, the respondent(s), from the Trust Deed and the Account Opening Form of the Presidium Eduvision Trust, came to know That the said Trust had three Trustees, that is, the petitioners Herein and the accused no.9 in the Complaint cases. The Respondent(s) claimed that these Trustees were fully involved in The subject transaction, however, had concealed that they were The Trustees of the accused no.2 Trust. The respondent(s) then filed an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. praying for impleadment of the petitioners as additional accused in the Complaint cases. The respondent(s further claimed that as notice under Section 138 of the NI Act has been served on the Trust through its Trustees, hence the requirement of Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act hasbeen duly complied with, by the respondent. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court by the Impugned Order, and the Trust and its three Trustees have been summoned as accused in the Complaint Cases filed by the respondent. .The petitioners have filed the present petitions being aggrieved Of the said Order which summons the petitioners as accused in the Above Complaint Cases.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 138 of the NI penalizes the dishonour of any cheque which has been issued in the discharge of the whole or part of “any debt or other liability”

Section 141 of the NI Act talks about the offences by company

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:

The petitioners through their counsel  submits that for Maintainability of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act read With Section 142 of the NI Act, service of notice under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act on the accused is mandatory. The counsel further submits That in the Complaint Cases, admittedly, the alleged demand notice Dated 28.01.2019 was not addressed to the petitioners in their Individual capacity. Counsel further  submits that, therefore, the complaint(s)Against the petitioners are not maintainable and the petitioners cannot Be summoned in the same. In support, the counsel places reliance on the Judgments of  supreme Courts in Ashok Shewakramani & Ors. V. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.,and the judgment of The High Court of Gujarat in Somesh Sarjivan Jain v. State of Gujrat & Anr

The counse further submits that merely by amending the complaints and Now, in the relevant paragraphs, making averments against inter alia The petitioners, and by merely changing the number of the accused, the Respondent(s) cannot be said to have satisfied the requirements of  Section 141 of the NI Act. The counsel further  submits that, therefore, even otherwise The Complaint Cases, as against the petitioners, are liable to be Dismissed.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

The respondents through their counsel Submits that the Trust (the accused no.2 in the Complaint Cases) had Been issued the legal/demand notice dated 28.01.2019, to be served Through its Trustees. The respondent(s) were not aware of the Trustees Of the said Trust till the deposition of the official of the Axis Bank.counsel further Submits that though the respondent(s) had dealt with the petitioners, They were not aware of their status as Trustees of the accused the counsel further  submits that the notice addressed to the Trust through its Trustees,Is sufficient notice to the Trustees themselves in their individual Capacity as well. In support, the counsel also  placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kirshna Texport & Capital Markets Ltd. V. Ila A. Agrawal & Ors. .Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., the counsel further  Submits that the purpose of Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. is to ensure that the real culprit should not get away unpunished. The counsel further submits that Once it is discovered that the petitioners are the Trustees of the Accused no.2 Trust and are also alleged to be involved in the alleged Transactions with the respondent(s), they are liable to be proceeded Against in terms of Section 141 of the NI Act.the counsel submits that the Purpose of Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. is to address such a situation. Counsel  also placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Abraham Memorial Educational Trust v. C. Suresh Babu,, to contend that under Section 141 of the NI Act, all the Trustees of a Trust would be equally liable to be Proceeded against under Section 138 of the NI Act.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

On hearing both the parties and considering the legal provisions, the court observed that the  only plea of the petitioners is the Lack of notice under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act and the Purported lack of pleadings in the Complaint Cases against the Petitioners herein in their individual capacity. The court also observed that As far as the lack of notice under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of The NI Act is concerned,  the said Provision requires notice to be sent to the ‘drawer’. Admittedly Notice(s) in the present Complaint Cases has been sent to the drawer,That is, the accused no.2-Trust.  The court also referred few judicial presidents.The court further considered that  There is no requirement for separate notice(s) to be Issued to each of the Trustees of the accused   to make them Vicariously liable and to be proceeded against in terms of Section 138 Of the NI Act read with Section 141 of the NI Act. The court further observed that the notice having Been served on the Trust through its Trustees, all the Trustees are Deemed to have been duly served with the legal/demand notice(s), Thereby meeting the requirement of Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act.As far as the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that The respondent(s) has merely changed the number of the accused in the Complaints and there is a lack of necessary pleadings in the complaint Cases in this regard, therefore the court opined that there is  no merit in the same. Therefore the court opined that, the above averments are sufficient for the purpose Of attracting Section 141 of the NI Act against the petitioners. Even Otherwise, in their capacity as Trustees of the accused no. 2, the Petitioners are officers in charge of the Trust. The petitioners shall Have to lead their defence under Section 141 of the NI Act, in case they are to escape their liability as the Trustees of the accused no.2-Trust, who is the drawer of the cheque(s) in question. Therefore the court opined that Such defence is Not to be considered by this Court or the learned Trial Court at this Stage, Hence . In view of the above, the court opined that there is no merits in the present petitions and , accordingly, dismissed the present petition.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

judgement reviewed by:Sowmya.R

Click here to view judgement

0

Bombay High Court had imposed penalties for allegedly manufacturing and selling substandard iodized salt.

Blog ,

Case Title: TATA Chemicals Limited and others Versus State of Maharashtra

Case No: APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 19 OF 2019

Decided on: 9th May , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL L. PANSARE

Facts of the case

It was alleged that TATA Chemicals Limited and other businesses produced and distributed inferior iodized salt. After obtaining samples of the salt from a trader’s location and sending them for analysis, the Food Safety Officer produced a report characterizing the salt as subpar and mislabeled since its sodium chloride content was below recommended levels.

Issues

1.Whether TATA Chemicals’ iodized salt below the standards required by the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006 when it was produced and sold?

2. Whether the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal’s fines against TATA Chemicals make sense and were they supported by a reliable sample analysis?

3. Whether the obligatory time limit outlined in the Rules of 2011 affect the sample’s quality, and did the sample analysis adhere to it?

4 Whether the report stating that the salt is misbranded and of inferior quality become null due to the non-compliance with procedural requirements?

Legal Provisions

Sections 26 (2) (ii) and 27 (1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), which forbid producing and marketing inferior food items, were in issue in this case.

Appellant’s Contentions

TATA Chemicals argued that because the sample analysis was conducted outside of the required time frame outlined in the Rules of 2011, environmental elements such heat, light, and moisture had an impact on the sample’s quality

Respondent’s Contentions

TATA Chemicals was accused by the State of Maharashtra, acting through the Food Safety and Drug Administration, of supplying inferior iodized salt, in violation of the FSSA regulations.

Court Analysis and Judgement

Recently, the Bombay High Court rendered a decision in the litigation pitting the State of Maharashtra against TATA Chemicals Limited and associates. The Food Safety Appellate Tribunal’s (FSAT) ruling against TATA Chemicals Limited concerning the production and distribution of inferior iodized salt was overturned by the court. The Referral Food Laboratory (RFL) was found to have violated the obligatory time limit specified in the Rules of 2011 for the examination of the salt samples, which served as the basis for the High Court’s ruling. Because of this, the RFL report was not in conformity with the statutory provisions, and as a result, the penalty imposed based on that report was not considered to be sustainable. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) was also instructed by the court to guarantee procedural compliance in laboratory sample analyses. This ruling highlights the significance of following procedure guidelines and the influence of external influences on food product quality.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Delhi High Court Affirms Trustees’ Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Notice to Trust Validly Served Through Trustees

Blog , , ,

CASE TITLE – HARPREET SAHNI & ANR. v. SHRICHAND HEMNANI & ORS.

CASE NUMBER – CRL.M.C. 6094/2022 & CRL.M.A. 23877/2022 + CRL.M.C. 6095/2022 & CRL.M.A. 23881/2022 + CRL.M.C. 6096/2022 & CRL.M.A. 23889/2022 + CRL.M.C. 6097/2022 & CRL.M.A. 23894/2022

DATED ON – 15.05.2024

QUORUM – Justice Navin Chawla

FACTS OF THE CASE

These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the Order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (NI Act), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in Complaint Case No.5505/2019, titled Shrichand Hemnani v. Mother’s Pride Punjabi Bagh & Ors. (in CRL.M.C. 6094/2022); Complaint case No. 5503/2019 titled Puja Hemnani v. Mother’s Pride Punjabi Bagh & Ors. (in CRL.M.C. 6095/2022); Complaint case No. 5504/2019 titled Asha Hemnani v. Mother’s Pride Punjabi Bagh & Ors. (in CRL.M.C. 6096/2022) and Complaint case No. 5501/2019 titled Vinod Hemnani v. Mother’s Pride Punjabi Bagh & Ors. (in CRL.M.C. 6097/2022) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘Complaint Cases’), filed by the Respondents herein, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NI Act’). The above complaint cases have been originally filed by the Respondents herein, making 10 accused including Presidium Eduvision Trust, through its Trustees. In the Complaints, it is averred that somewhere in December, 2014, the respective respondents/complainants had contacted either the accused no.3, that is, Ms.Sudha Gupta, Chairman of Mother’s Pride Punjabi Bagh and Presidium Eduvision Trust or/and the accused no.2, that is, Presidium Eduvision Trust, through its trustees, for admission of the child in the school of Mother’s Pride Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd.. It was alleged that the accused nos.3 to 10 came in contact with the respondents and the family members, and represented and assured them about their position, inter alia, in the accused no.2, that is, Presidium Eduvision Trust, and also claimed about their relationship with the Mother’s Pride Educational Institute Pvt. Ltd.. It is alleged that based on their representation, the Respondents have allegedly extended loans to the accused, in the joint name of accused no.1-Mother’s Pride Punjabi Bagh and the accused no.2-Presidium Eduvision Trust. It is alleged that the accused were to pay interest at the rate of 19.5% per annum on the loan amount for the period of the loan. It is alleged that till the month of June, 2018, accused nos.1 to 10 paid interest on the said loan, however, thereafter they defaulted in payment of interest. It is claimed that on 01.12.2018, when the Respondents deposited the cheques issued by the accused nos.1 to 10 for repayment of the loan, the same were dishonoured with the remark „Funds Insufficient‟. It is averred that the Respondents thereafter issued respective legal notices dated 28.01.2019 to the accused nos.1 to 10 to repay the cheques amount, however, the same was not paid. The Respondents in the original complaints also pleaded and made similar allegations.

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, deals with powers prescribes to the court to take action against someone who wasn’t originally named as an accused in the chargesheet.

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, deals with the Inherent Powers prescribes to the High Courts, which states the High Court has by its very nature, independent of any specific provision in the CrPC.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, deals with the situation such as when a cheque issued by someone (drawer) bounces because there aren’t enough funds in their account to cover the amount.

Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, deals with offences by companies related to negotiable instruments, most commonly cheques, where it assigns liability for cheque dishonorment offences by companies to specific individuals within the company.

Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, deals with how courts handle complaints regarding bounced cheques, which are covered under Section 138 of the Act.

 

CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued that for maintainability of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act read with Section 142 of the NI Act, service of notice under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act on the accused is mandatory. He also submitted that in the Complaint Cases, admittedly, the alleged demand notice dated 28.01.2019 was not addressed to the Petitioners in their individual capacity. He argued that, therefore, the complaints against the petitioners are not maintainable and the petitioners cannot be summoned in the same. The Learned Counsel further stated that merely by amending the complaints and now, in the relevant paragraphs, making averments against inter alia the Petitioners, and by merely changing the number of the accused, the Respondents cannot be said to have satisfied the requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act. He submits that, therefore, even otherwise the Complaint Cases, as against the Petitioners, are liable to be dismissed.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS

The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Trust (the accused no.2 in the Complaint Cases) had been issued the legal/demand notice dated 28.01.2019, to be served through its Trustees. The Respondents were not aware of the Trustees of the said Trust till the deposition of the official of the Axis Bank. He submitted that though the Respondents had dealt with the Petitioners, they were not aware of their status as Trustees of the accused no. 2. He also argued that the notice addressed to the Trust through its Trustees is sufficient notice to the Trustees themselves in their individual capacity as well.

The Learned Counsel argued that once it was discovered that the Petitioners are the Trustees of the accused no.2 Trust and are also alleged to be involved in the alleged transactions with the Respondents, they are liable to be proceeded against, in terms of Section 141 of the NI Act. He stated that the purpose of Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. is to address such a situation.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble High Court viewed that Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act read with Section 142 of the NI Act shows that for the maintainability of a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, should make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing ‘to the drawer of the cheque’ within 30 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. The notice, therefore, is to be given ‘to the drawer of the cheque’. Section 7 of the NI Act defines the term ‘drawer’ as the maker of the bill of exchange or cheque. And in the present cases, the cheques are drawn by the accused no.2 Trust. It is, therefore, the ‘drawer of the cheques’. The notice has, admittedly, been issued to the ‘drawer’, that is, the accused no.2- Trust. The same has been addressed to be served on the drawer/Trust through its Trustees. Presently, it is not disputed by the petitioners that they are the Trustees of the accused No.2-Trust. And also noticed that Section 141 of the NI Act states that for the purpose of Section 141 of the NI Act, the term ‘company’ means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. It is not disputed by the petitioners that a Trust will be covered by the above definition of the term ‘company’ and, therefore, the Trustees would be persons who would be responsible to the Trust for the conduct of its business and be in-charge of its business and, therefore, deemed to be guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Notice having been served on the Trust through its Trustees, all the Trustees are deemed to have been duly served with the legal/demand notices, thereby meeting the requirement of Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act. And as far as the plea of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Respondent has merely changed the number of the accused in the complaints and there is a lack of necessary pleadings in the complaint cases in this regard, for which the Court found no merit in the same.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgement.

1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 1,859